A good real debate. Looking forward to seeing the top dogs match the VP debate -- and better it by disclosing and battling over the still missing fiscal details.
If the top dogs fail, perhaps America would be better off if Romney and Obama both tripped while leaving the debate building, breaking their necks, and leaving Americans with a real choice: the VPs.
Unfortunately, the choice doesn't matter. Accelerating Climate Change will soon change everything: socially, economically, and as a result of the lethal pandemics it spurs, with a very much smaller global population. As a precaution, get you flu shot and hope for the best.
Rudy Haugeneder

LOL, I enjoyed your comments...right up until the climate change and pandemics rant. How do you know warming won't make previously non-arable land productive ? That it won't kill off certain germs ? There's as much chance for upside gain as there is for downside risks.

Both "warming and cooling" trends have taken place foreever and have nothing to do with man...thought I'd get that out there prior to any possible rant.

We almost agreed this time. Climate change has occurred historically, and the nature of climate change is unknown. It could be devastating, which is why we don't want it, or it could be beneficial, which is why the research into it should still continue.

But t this point, to deny climate change is to deny science. Feed me your phony stories about government conspiracy and whatever, but I know scientists who work in the field. They have shown me their work. Actually, they have demonstrated it to me. It is easy to see how man made activity is not just messing with the carbon cycle, but also the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle.

LOL, I enjoyed your comments... right up until the use of the term "germs". Which, is certainly telling of a tenuous grip on science and the looming impacts we will feel from climate change.

While "warming and cooling" trends have happened during throughout the history of the earth, none so fast and dramatically as the current climate change. The emissions/pollution/ deforestation that is so affecting our planet did not even started to occur within the history of HUMAN existence. So when after less than 200 years of driving cars around and flipping on light switches has proven to be effectively destroying the habitats of arctic and high alpine animals, it would be highly irresponsible to not try and minimize, or make plans to react to the continuing adverse impact that we are imposing on the planet. Eventually that impact is going to spill more noticeably and more devastatingly onto us.

As for previously non-arable land becoming fertile, let me provide you with this analogy. The Marmot that is native to Sierra Nevada is endangered species. Their preferred habitats, up in the cool parts of the mountains become warmer and warmer every year. Each year as their habitats get warmer, they move higher and higher up the mountain, following the cool air. Here is where the endangered part comes in, eventually they are going to run out of mountain. So while a warming planet may some new areas fertile (and with that some fertile areas non-fertile, think the corn crop in middle America this year), it will be fleeting, with the negatives far outweighing whatever positives may come.

Sir, to see the same climate change evidence "pre-SUV" that we're seeing now indicates that man is majoring in minor Mickey Mouse mountains of minutia when claiming man-made GW. The only thing that is cooking is the data (cf East Anglia, NASA, et al).

One example:
Iberdrola Renovables, a wind subsidiary largely owned by the Spanish electricity giant Iberdrola, received $1.5 billion for 20 wind farms it built across the United States.
The company benefited from a program that had been reshaped by the Obama transition team to award cash grants to defray construction costs for renewable energy plants. The grants, available to any eligible builder, replaced tax credits that had become worthless in the financial crisis. With early warning from the Obama team, Iberdrola and other developers could time construction and qualify for the cash for some plants largely built in 2008 — before Obama took office.
GIM [Gore's investment firm] had invested modest amounts in Iberdrola Renovables in early 2008 but began dramatically increasing its holdings in early 2009, eventually owning 4.2 million shares.

Genuine supporters of clean energy ought to be as irked at these sorts of stories as climate-change skeptics are, because when a company's competitive advantage is "early warning from the Obama team," the companies whose competitive advantage is better technology rather than better relations with the Obama administration are the ones that get left behind.

As the earth has changed through millennia species have come and gone at varying rates. Something came before your Marmot; and something before that. And both long before man had any influence. And we can safely say that something will replace it.

We can debate forever the veracity of the science and the fact that climate science has been bought and sold like a cheap whore. Many times.

I'm more interested in the two sided coin with climate's self-flagellation for being human on one side; and an arrogance that mankind can affect much of anything, on the other.

The marmots are happy for the demise of a previous specie; something will celebrate their demise. When did adaptation need man's help ?

As the earth has changed through millennia species have come and gone at varying rates. Something came before your Marmot; and something before that. And both long before man had any influence. And we can safely say that something will replace it.

We can debate forever the veracity of the science and the fact that climate science has been bought and sold like a cheap whore. Many times.

I'm more interested in the two sided coin with climate's self-flagellation for being human on one side; and an arrogance that mankind can affect much of anything, on the other.

The marmots are happy for the demise of a previous specie; something will celebrate their demise. When did adaptation need man's help ?

The climate has changed in the past, but never on the level it has recent times. Your idea that this is a conspiracy, because the current administration is trying to create additional incentives for green energies, and people with knowledge of the incentives are taking advantage of them, is not proof to the contrary at all. Renewable energy as an industry has experienced tremendous growth, not just because it is green, but because it is becoming cost effective. Even without climate change, why not invest in these opportunities. You can insist they are only cost effective because of the government support, but then wasn't that the case with the oil industry.

And your idea of the inevitable end of mankind is so pessimistic and fatalistic that you must use it to justify your unwillingness to leave the next generation a better world than you had.

Yes, the entire scientific community is cooking the books on climate change. That must be it. Because they all have financial stakes in green technologies. They don't give a s### about science. They are only scientists after all.

I don't doubt your story of the wind farm firm. But that is what we call political corruption. It exists everywhere, it sucks, and it need be addressed more vigorously. But to pretend that means scientific evidence is all tampered with, is quite an overreach. Nice try.

I think it is the media and media men (or women) who are unhinged if they think it was a draw or that Ryan won.

And what's up with the "wonkish" title for Ryan? By throwing around mugged up terminology nobody becomes an expert. It will take me only 60 minutes to master the terminology of a brain surgeon, is that going to quality me to perform your brain surgery?

(On a side note, I am two years away from being an American Citizen, so I am not a voter and I am neither a liberal nor a conservative and I have no sympathy or patience for blind ideologues of any label).

Wow, I'm not an American either, so I have "no dog in this fight" but I clearly sided with Msr Ryan as the winner and by far the more intelligent of the two. Me thinks you've already developed your opinion...

Herman Cain Says Biden Won! Limbaugh too!
And so does Limbaugh...but first Cain...Ah, what sweet music to my ears...Herman '999' Cain on the Neal Boortz this morning couldn't help but admit that Biden won the debate, hands down, and Neal Boortz agreed! The best that either of them could do was to pretend that Biden had somehow 'taken advantage' of Ryan by talking over him and being 'rude'. This was their unwavering assessment of the debate over the hour of a half hour of analysis and they ended by agreeing that the best they hoped for from polls in the days ahead was that Romney wouldn't drop too much. Limbaugh is a miserable snarling beast today. Likewise he feels infinite outrage over the great disrespect showed to Ryan by Biden. There is no joy in Limbaugh Land all he can do about it is this sad post on his Facebook page. ha ha ha...
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network
3 hours ago
OFFICIAL INTERRUPTION COUNT: 116 times in under 40 minutes. Moderator interrupted Ryan 34 times.
Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times.

No sane person in the United States of America who watched the VP debate would choose Paul Ryan to actually 'be' the president over Joe Biden. Certainly not if they even considered the idea of national security...but...the early polls seem to say that Ryan did OK. I'll be very surprised if Biden's performance doesn't give a boost to the president though.

The fact is, that from any objective viewpoint Biden was the overwhelming winner and any poll which says otherwise is simply a result of the sampling rate of both parties by pollsters and their preconvictions. If some polls say the debate was a virtual draw, that only means that half the audience polled intends to vote Republican, it doesn't mean anybody actually thought Ryan did well.

Biden was sharp confident and mature and Ryan came off like a baby weasel.

Madam, your fevered dream of another Obama presidency has you unhinged. I thought Msr Ryan won--barely, but definitely. If the Jerry Lewis smile and inanities of Msr Biden impressed you, it may say more about you than anything about Msr Ryan.

Your country is in a financial shambles at the worker level--but Wall Street is singing all the way to the bank. I believe this is what they referred to as a "jobless recovery" back when Msr Bush suffered under the press' lash for a 5.4% unemployment rate. One you American would love to get back to, I'm sure.

You clearly don't understand economics. The downward momentum of the Bush economy has been stopped by the Obama administration (as well the the incredible resilience of the American people). Wall Street is not singing....they are more regulated than during the Bush years, and their profits far below what Bush gave to them. The American economy is undergoing structural changes to be more competitive in the future. It may be a little painful, but to pretend the illusion of wealth and employment under Bush remained would surely drive this country into a crash.

I thought the debate was close. Both men did what the had to do. If I had to pick a winner I would choose Biden, but I thought Ryan held his own. Biden was more dominant in the area of foreign policy, which was much of the debate.

Only someone without a formal education in economics would think Romney Ryan can actually reduce taxes, increase military spending, eliminate the deficit, invest more in education, and champion small business. Get a life Esteban. Why are you so interested in American politics?

Last question first: My interest in U.S. politics should be obvious. Without the U.S. what do you think the world would be like ? I'll tell you: oppressed with no hope. Life ? Short, dark, brutish. It is your arms in the EU and ME that has held tyrants at bay. There is the USSR back in the day. You may recall a character named Slobodan Milosevic. His start mirrors that of many tiny dictators, before they sprout. There are a host of other players who were controlled or put down OR prevented from ever blossoming. I'm very interested in whether you project strength...or apologize. Should Msr Obama prevail in November you will see China exercising her military muscles—just ask Japan. Americans seem to forget that there are a lot of aggressors watching for signs of weakness. Msr Ryan was trying to explain Mullah’s POV. In the old Brit way, you still have The White Man’s Burden perspective and do not look at it from the aggressor’s perspective. This is where Msr Ryan shone.

Unfortunately, your country has been infected by a blight of self-righteousness in the form post-modernistic thought and self-prescribed self-doubt. This shows up in your Uni's as "Grievance Studies", informed more by white guilt than history or logic. Your men are going EU Metro. Thank heaven for your military.

Now, as to Econ...you'd be surprised what I know about it. First, Keynesian economics has failed miserably. Does it really make sense to "spend your way out of debt"? Really? Look to the EU for excellent examples Moreover, look to Messrs.’ Frank and Dodd and to your Msr Clinton for lowering loan standards in the name of "fairness" leading to your housing crisis. This has impacts around the globe, BTW, on rates and other instruments.

As to Messrs.’ Biden and Ryan...I agree: it's difficult to score such an event; however, Ryan seems more honest. As the article states, Biden is a used car salesman in every sense of the title.

So clearly you don't understand economics. The idea of affordable housing, assuring a small portion of banks' portfolios go to less wealthy customers, was not a bad one until the financial markets decided to create untested products for it. Ever heard of mortgage backed securities. The banks expanded these subprime mortgage markets to benefit their own purposes. The government surely had a role (through Freddy and Fannie), but the banks were the real movers, increasing leverage, and betting massive sums through opaque derivative markets. And yes, look at the EU, where they have refused to adopt Keynesian policies (Greece), and instead opted for austerity (rather it was forced on them), the country is a mess. Meanwhile Norway, where government spending is very high, has one of the highest GDP per capitas and is consistently polled as one of the happiest places on Earth.

As for your notion that China will only flex its muscle in response to a President Obama election, let me explain. China is a rapidly growing country with a rapidly growing military. They will increasingly flex their muscle regardless of US actions, and pretending the US can control their foreign policy or security arrangements will only lead to poor relations and eventually conflict. Remember who defeated the USSR. Ronald Reagan. His only land war was in Granada. His only air war was less than a weak of bombing Libya. His tools for peace through strength were his rhetoric, sanctions, and diplomacy. Almost the Obama policy, only with drone warfare.

Should America never apologize? Really? It can never be wrong? It is supposed to be an enlightened power, and the world is as you say not oppressed with no hopes not because America has lead, but because of the way it has lead. It created the international system (WTO, UN, IMF, WB), it created NATO so it could work with allies and stand up to the totalitarianism in the USSR, and it took the lead on things like human rights, fighting poverty, education, and stopping epidemics.

This characterization isn't perfect, because the US at times made mistakes, but it made up for them. It is not as it is now, going blundering into Iraq searching for WMDs, ignoring the protests of allies, and pretending the whole thing was about democracy and the place is better now anyway (it is not). The US used to take the lead in international issues, not go off rogue.

And that is not what the article states about Vice President Biden, but like most people on the right you like to distort, mislead, and have no reservation for the truth.

I am still perplexed why anybody still considers Ryan a budget wonk. Throwing around budget jargon does not make one an expert on budget matters. Any serious study of his budget plan will show that he did not
bother to add up the numbers nor has any idea of the dangerous ramifications of his proposed budget cuts and tax reductions. If adopted (never will be given its gross inadequacies) it would crater the federal budget. There is only true statement emitted by Ryan, the US income tax system badly needs reforming but no one has yet put forward a credible plan of how that is to be done, least of all Ryan.

Well said. I expect most media outlets to be impressed by 10 dollar words that are devoid of substance; I expect more from the Economist.

The fact is that Ryan couldn't answer the most basic questions about how they're going to fund their tax plan. That shows, in my mind, a startling lack of competence on budgetary matters. "Wonkish mastery of federal taxation" is about the last phrase that applies here.

I generally agree, but I don't think you are giving Ryan enough credit.

There is a strong probability that he is perfectly aware that the math doesn't work - that his proposed tax cuts can't be covered via deduction reductions on the rich alone. He may just be lying when he says it will work.

Republicans have never been sincerely interested in reducing deficits. Which Republican president in recent decades made any strides in reducing deficits? Reagan? Bush Sr? Bush Jr?

Fact is - Republicans use deficit reduction as an excuse for tax cuts for the rich. The sad part is - all the low income Republicans get taken in by the scam.

Ryan just solved the deficit!!! If the wealthy pay twice as much in taxes this year as they did last year (which could be done by closing off-shore shelters, increasing capital gains, reducing unnecessary breaks) we would have a $300b deficit left. At 350m indivduals we would all just need to come up with an extra $850 (that's not billion, or million, or thousand, just plain old dollars) a head.

What a sad day for America when Americans are selecting debate “winner” based on passion and the temerity to lie in a public forum. Quite frankly, I would pick Obama as the previous debate winner by default since whoever showed up on the Republican side was not Mitt Romney but some unknown stranger.

It's a tough world kid. There is good and evil, a toothfairy, and a simple clear cut answer for everything. Your innocence is admirable, but loses when dealing with grown up things. In the real world there are few absolutes.

Everything is gray. Both candidates tortured the data until they got what they wanted from it and omitted relevant qualifying statements. Studies are pinned on assumptions. I could some punchy assumptions on both facts when analyzing the sources. Ambiguity is always there since going into these details in a debate wouldn't keep the viewers on board, would take too long, and bore them to tears. The assumptions are easy to find if you look and you can make your own judgement on the feasibility.

Crying liar is a desperate tactic and assumes voters are simple minded.

You are correct about Msr Romney, given how your press has painted him, I didn't recogize him either. I expected a total blow out in the favor of Msr Obama, but Romeny impressed me. He's real; Msr Obama is fake. It was quite a wake up.

Its not so much about how the press had painted Romney, but how Romney had painted Romney.

From the time of the primaries up until right before the presidential debate, Romney had been presenting himself as a far-right conservative (going so far as to pick extremist Ryan as his VP candidate).

Minutes before the debate, two-faced Mitt presented himself as Moderate Centrist Romney.

Had Romney presented himself as the hard-right candidate he had been pretending to be, he indeed would have been squashed by Obama. Alas, everyone was caught off guard, not least of all Obama...

That's politics sir. Had Mitt moved closer to center too early he would not have made it out of the primary. Obama had the luxury of not running in the primary as an incumbent president.

The two party system works rather well at keeping oppositions strong v. fragmenting them, keeping some uniformity across a party to avoid gridlock on small issues, and helping to avoid the corruption that can take place from having small and fragmented parties that can swing a coalition. With that said, the shortcoming is that there are values across a party that cannot be uniform across the constituents....it's a tradeoff since there is no perfect system. Does a conservative view of the economy mean one is against abortion or gay marriage -- nope. Two very different issues. In politics it's a necessary evil to toe the line enough to keep constituents happy and be able to win the presidency. Even more of a challenge for someone that can work across the isle. On the other hand, it's exactly what we need right now.

Mr. Clinton, Obama's newfound totem started further left and moved center. This is not a flaw but a survival tool. Romney did a good job of working through this balance without doing a 180 on positions held in the primary.

Romney is real? Which Romney? The one that ran Massachusetts? Or the one that's "severely conservative" from the primaries? Or the new more gentle moderate? Or the one from the next day assuring pro-life voters he'll defund planned parenthood?

Apologies for the tone -- was just making a point. I accidentally "Bidened" "law-and-order" in my opening statement (I was laughing maniacally in Biden-like fashion when I typed it too). Crazy Joe must have really moved me last night...wildly entertaining even if it lacked substance. You need that type of diversion sometimes. There are rumors that SNL may just use actual footage from the debate tomorrow night.

Even if I agree very little of anything that comes out of his mouth, I have to admit that I am addicted to everything Crazy Joe. I feel like I may have met him on a float at one of the resorts in the Caribbean sucking down a Margarita while telling jokes and doing impressions to a bunch of vacationing retirees. He would be one funny b@stard to hang out with.

How many Americans voted for a ticket with a brainless beauty pageant queen [AKA Sarah Palin] on it? How many Americans actually believe that FOX/GOP/TEA Propaganda Network is fair and balanced because they say so? How many GOP primary voters cast ballots for Palin, Bachman, Gingrich and Santorum? It isn't much of a stretch to suggest that that is the number of simple minded American voters.

Unless we improve the level of education [specifically civics, logic and research skills for voter education] and persuade people to actually pay attention and use it, the future is indeed dark grey for the US.

Sir, your examples appear consistent--I do not see any prevarication in them. Msr Romney could claim all of the above and still be consistent.

Interestingly, RomneyCare differs from ObamaCare in its legitimacy. Compelling citizen participation in anything is a reserved right to the states, not an enumerated right to the Federal government. Finding it in your Constitution was a penumbral finding, as was abortion. This is known as judicial fiat—not the testing of laws for constitutional veracity, but the making of law. Of course, your current president has also worked around your Congress…and your Constitution.

Nobody is addressing the solvency issue of Social Security and Medicare. Obama has promised not to cut benefits but has failed to provide any meaningful fiscal reforms that would sustain that promise. Romney, on the other hand, took a page out of Reagan's voodoo economics textbook and has provided an unworkable framework.

One i do agree with for Romney SS is raising retirement age. Raising retirement age has to happen, however unfavorable politically. In a defined benefit system, life expectancies have increased but retirement age hasn't. The other feasible way to square that circle is moving toward defined contribution systems and make individuals more accountable for the savings and can plan accordingly. Magic doesn't work and stifling incentive by raising taxes for idle retirees ceases up the engine.

But, IMHO it can also be partially addressed on the revenue side. Right now there is a cap on the income level where people have to stop paying SS tax. Increasing that cap would also help significantly.

(Interestingly, in the last debate, Romney proposed means testing SS payments which has a similar effect. But that allows him to pretend it isn't a tax increase)

Personally, I don't see the SS problem as all that hard to solve... nowhere near as complex as solving the overall deficit situation.

Social security is actually pretty straightforward, politics aside. Right now, more is going to benefits than is being taken in on payroll taxes, so to keep the payments flowing, money is passed from other taxes. This is considered ok, because it used to be that money from social security was spent in place of other, higher taxes, and IOUs issued for the difference.

Soon the IOUs will run out. So what? Just keep the flow of revenue going as it is now, and have the IOUs written by the "trust fund" instead of to it.

Some people get SS without having paid into it. I don't think absolute means testing is desirable, but some sort should be considered. After all, people who pay car insurance or medical insurance don't expect to get all of it and more back later.

There should be a reasonable [far less than double] additional contribution to SS made to cover survivor benefits.

At times, had I been shown clips of the debate on mute, I would have honestly believed it was Saturday night at 1130 and the VP candidates were playing themselves. I was on the edge of my seat waiting for Biden to fall off his seat or swear. The contrast of Biden looking belligerent and Ryan serious did make for good TV.

Lesson: for a veep, low expectations and ability to run a good offense pays. The veep plays the role of heckler at these and can say things and do things a pres can't. In Crazy Joe's case, viewers would be disappointed if he didn't bring a little crazy in with him. This was tame for Joe. Ryan's Boyscout image doesn't serve him as well to forget manners, talk louder, be smug,etc. His age gave him less flexibility here too.

Both did what they had to, but low expectations and no holds barred approach after Obama's timid performance gives their ticket " less bad " momentum.

The Ryan-Romney tax should be simple arithmetic, I have no idea why the maths are so difficult for someone who is supposed to be a numbers wonk. Martha asked for specifics from Ryan, the only mastery Ryan then displayed was convincing people he should still be thought of as a wonk without having actual expertise.

"Performance" ? Pray tell, exactly what performace do you refer to ? Things are much worse than when he "inherited" his mess. Should he prevail in your Nov elections, exactly who will Msr Obama blame this time around ? Himself ? He NEVER does that. The man has never led or produced anything, at least anything I can see. Perhaps you have a list ?

As to producing anything, maybe he should produce some of his hidden records ? I imagine Msr Romney's past tax returns are hidden beneath Msr Obama's school records, yes?

Under skilled questioning from the evening’s moderator, Martha Raddatz of ABC News, Mr Ryan was also largely unable to explain with clarity how Mr Romney’s policies on Iran or Syria differed from the Obama policies he was denouncing with such vigour.

Probably the difference, for Mr Ryan and his party, is simply that if a policy is Mr Obama's it is, by definition, bad. The same policy, if it is put forward by Republicans, can be quite good. Even if what they put up has minimal, and only semantic, differences with what Obama is already doing.

Hwoever, if they come up with it first, and Mr Obama decides to agree with them, that's a different story. (Perhaps because it is harder to invent supposed points of difference.) Then it abruptly becomes evil and an attack on everything that is good about America. It was true on health care; why shouldn't it be true on Afghanistan?

If everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we'd still have a $300 billion deficit. You see? There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending.

You've got a point. Everyone is part of the constituency for more spending--you, me, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Tea Party -- all people have something they favor funding. Only the pain of pay-as-you-go enlarges the constituency for less spending. Might as well hand out credit cards and send the bill to the grand kids if we're going to discard tax burdens no matter the debt. Why not close tax loopholes, pay down debt, and then decrease taxes. Not just shift the future generations burden from this generation's loopholes to this generation's lowered taxes.

"Democrat and Republican partisans are likely to believe that their man won."

Going to bed last night that was my take. Though since Biden had to arrest the plummeting Dem morale while Ryan had to not self-implode, Biden had a lot more riding on successfully hitting his mark.

But this morning the overwhelming theme from Republicans, starting moments after the debate with McConnell and Priebus, is that they did not care one bit for Biden's manner. That's not usually something you care about if you think your guy won. So I am revising my opinion of how Republicans think that debate went.

Importantly for Dems, Biden showed passion, even if it lacked composure, something the ticket severely needed. Despite the lack of composure by Biden, he gets a pass because hey, that's Crazy Joe. Despite the criticism of appearing rude and unstable at times, I think it served him well for four reasons, 1) it didn't surprise anyone coming from Joe, 2) it was entertaining and memorable, 3) it might have exploited the age/experience difference he has with Ryan for older voters by giving him an heir of a wily old statesman, and 4) I found myself being do distracted by Biden's expressions that at some points I didn't listen to what Ryan was saying. Snickering and shouting shouldn't win debates, but the bar was set very low and what the ticket really needed was a shot in the arm to energize the base which they got.

That said, the one consistent from both debates is that both Romney and Ryan showed composure while Biden and Obama lacked it in theirs. Romney was able to best a sleepy Obama without yelling or laughing hysterically during split screens. At least while Biden lacked composure and had passion and engagement in the issues. Obama made sour faces while lacking any passion, seemingly offended at being asked tough questions.

I propose Romney v. Biden in the next debate. At the very least it will be good for ratings.